Gamble

pro tem. — This is an appeal by defendants from a judgment enjoining defendants from violating a building restriction in a residence district. [1] Plaintiff and defendants are the owners, respectively, of adjoining lots, each deraigning title by a separate chain of title from a common grantor. Consequently, as between plaintiff and defendants, there is no privity either of contract or estate, and the right claimed by plaintiff is in the nature of an equitable easement as defined and exemplified in the cases of Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal. 174 [ 183 Pac. 945 ], McBride v. Freeman, 191 Cal. 152 [ 215 Pac. 678 ], Martin v. Holm, 197 Cal. 733 [ 242 Pac. 718 ], and Alderson v. Cutting, 163 Cal. 504 [Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1, 126 Pac. 157 ].

Under the foregoing authorities the basis of plaintiff’s equitable easement as against the defendants must be found in the deed from the common grantor to the defendants’ grantor. Furthermore, the language of this deed must be construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances existing at the time of the making of the deed. In other words, from this deed, and this deed alone, as so construed, must appear the intent of the parties to create mutual or…